More NASA lies. 2 different places, same landscape.

Tom, if you can't supply this, I can only assume you are lying

A ridiculous assumption followed by an obvious falsehood.

Quote from: Graff on April 04, 2012, 07:16:29 PM

Tom, if you can't supply this, I can only assume you are lying

A ridiculous assumption followed by an obvious falsehood.

Would you like to supply it for me, then?
Because I would rather not spend more time hunting it.
I did look through three pages worth of comments. I could find nothing at all like he claims.
Why can't he quote it? Why can't I find it?

I read the initial info:
The locations are 4km apart.

This contradicts Tom's assumption that they

traveled hundreds of miles on the moon's surface in their moon buggies?

Also:
It looks like the same exact shot from the same camera.  Since they "pause" the video after the first "instance" it's impossible to say.

Also:
That doesn't look like the rover to me.  The shape is all wrong.  You have a shape that's the exact same size as the astronauts backpacks with a long, thing pole sticking up.
If you notice in the second "time" (2:00) they're both carrying some kind of long pole.  One has it on his belt or back, the other has it in his hand.

So we have one paused image of an astronaut standing on a hill with a collection of rocks with the same exact shadow but with an object with the same size as the pack the astronauts are wearing and a pole.
In the next shot we have two astronauts with poles standing on a hill with the exact same shot, same shadows, same rocks.

However, searching through the Apollo archives, I can't seem to find that specific video.
I wish they had actually told us when it was taken during the mission. 

...
However, searching through the Apollo archives, I can't seem to find that specific video.
I wish they had actually told us when it was taken during the mission.

Both video segments are from the same EVA site, Geology Station 4 at the Stone Mountain Cincos, on EVA-2 of Apollo 16. I wonder why anyone but a Moon Hoaxer would even consider this a problem.

Reference: http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/a16v.1445240.mpg,
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/a16v.1444935.mpg, and
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/video16.html

It's a real shame that so many FEers don't do original-source research to resolve these outlandish Moon Hoax claims.

Oh, and just to hone the point that the YouTube post is inaccurate... That's not the LR in the background. The camera on the LR is taking the video. That's just a collection "bag" on the hill.
 

So why did the video say it was 1st day of the EVA?

I smell a lie.

So why did the video say it was 1st day of the EVA?

I smell a lie.

Well, technically... The second EVA only had one day. I think though that it's a matter of a happy accident of pedantry for the Moon Hoaxer.

Quote from: Lorddave on April 07, 2012, 11:37:07 AM

So why did the video say it was 1st day of the EVA?

I smell a lie.

Well, technically... The second EVA only had one day. I think though that it's a matter of a happy accident of pedantry for the Moon Hoaxer.

Wait, did both EVAs happen on the same day or not?

Quote from: markjo on April 04, 2012, 06:39:22 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 04, 2012, 05:41:02 PM

You are telling me that my source is invalid because they do not believe that the earth is flat and do not believe that space travel is impossible. You are telling me that my arguments are invalid because of this.

 Are you suggesting that full disclosure of source material should not be allowed?  Should I not be allowed to point out how the video in the OP comes from a site that claims to have evidence of " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">aliens on the moon?

It is not relevant that someone who presents evidence that NASA is hoaxing a space mission believes that the earth is round. The evidence is not being presented to demonstrate that the earth is flat, or that space travel is impossible. The evidence being presented as evidence that NASA is hoaxing a space mission.

I don't care if someone believes in aliens or RET. What matters is the actual evidence at hand. This is what you need to address: the actual evidence at hand. Do not address inconsequential side topics. Do not address irrelevant personal beliefs. Do not divert the topic. Do not scheme your way out of discussions. Do not assail me with diversion spam. You must address the actual topic. Otherwise I must ask you to leave.

Like I have said before Tom, you believe that NASA has hoaxed nearly every space mission.  But when cite a source that claims that NASA has been to mars and is covering up lies there, it is not going to be very convincing, because it directly conflicts with your fundamental belief that NASA has hoaxed every mission involving space flight.

If i had no clue who you were or what you believed (in relation to this site of course) then yes it would make sense for you to post it as evidence that NASA is hoaxing missions.  But i also know that you believe every mission was hoaxed, and that you are using the assertion that because some were faked all could have been faked.  So while I know you are literally saying "this shows some missions were faked, nothing more, nothing less" and your source's claims support that, I also know that your actual belief is that every NASA space mission has been faked, and your source directly conflicts with that.

So when you accuse markjo of bringing in non-relevant "variable y" to an equation, you need to understand that markjo is looking at the larger equation, where y is very relevant.

Quote from: ClockTower on April 07, 2012, 11:39:51 AM

Quote from: Lorddave on April 07, 2012, 11:37:07 AM

So why did the video say it was 1st day of the EVA?

I smell a lie.

Well, technically... The second EVA only had one day. I think though that it's a matter of a happy accident of pedantry for the Moon Hoaxer.

Wait, did both EVAs happen on the same day or not?

No, by all reasonable measures, the three EVAs of Apollo 16 each occurred on different "days". The most pedantic interpretation of "first day of the EVA" in favor of the Moon Hoaxer would be that the EVA under consideration (I think that they confused EVA-2 footage with EVA-1 footage.) had the scene only on the first day of EVA-2, which of course lasted less than a day.

Realize that I don't support this Moon Hoax video in any way. These people repeatedly report inaccurate or incomplete challenges. We've seen so many Moon Hoax failures that it's just time to stop feeding the Moon Hoaxers. They just waste our time.

Quote from: ClockTower on April 07, 2012, 11:39:51 AM

Quote from: Lorddave on April 07, 2012, 11:37:07 AM

So why did the video say it was 1st day of the EVA?

I smell a lie.

Well, technically... The second EVA only had one day. I think though that it's a matter of a happy accident of pedantry for the Moon Hoaxer.

Wait, did both EVAs happen on the same day or not?

Whether both EVAs happened on the same day or not is irrelevant.  Whether or not both EVAs happened at the same location is what's relevant.

Whether both EVAs happened on the same day or not is irrelevant.  Whether or not both EVAs happened at the same location is what's relevant.

I think the Moon Hoaxers have confused you. They incorrectly claim that the two clips are from separate EVAs. Again:

Both video segments are from the same EVA site, Geology Station 4 at the Stone Mountain Cincos, on EVA-2 of Apollo 16. ...

Quote from: Lorddave on April 07, 2012, 09:23:37 AM

...
However, searching through the Apollo archives, I can't seem to find that specific video.
I wish they had actually told us when it was taken during the mission.

Both video segments are from the same EVA site, Geology Station 4 at the Stone Mountain Cincos, on EVA-2 of Apollo 16. I wonder why anyone but a Moon Hoaxer would even consider this a problem.

Reference: http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/a16v.1445240.mpg,
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/a16v.1444935.mpg, and
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/video16.html

It's a real shame that so many FEers don't do original-source research to resolve these outlandish Moon Hoax claims.

Oh, and just to hone the point that the YouTube post is inaccurate... That's not the LR in the background. The camera on the LR is taking the video. That's just a collection "bag" on the hill.

Well...
There ya go.
That video has just been 100% proven wrong. 

Shame on you Tom for trusting an source online and not your own eyes.  Shame!

Would you like to supply it for me, then?
Because I would rather not spend more time hunting it.
I did look through three pages worth of comments. I could find nothing at all like he claims.
Why can't he quote it? Why can't I find it?

Whether or not you can be bothered to look for something has no bearing on whether or not Tom is a liar, or the range of options available to you.

I just want to know a simple answer, to the faqqers who unjustly bash the prople that work for NASA, just who is NASA?
The top guy, the top 10? top 100? everyone?

when you "discover" just who is in on it, don't make an unjust personal attack.

it is very UN Zetetic.  Thank you Master Willmore for moderating this thread.

Quote from: Graff on April 04, 2012, 07:44:39 PM

Would you like to supply it for me, then?
Because I would rather not spend more time hunting it.
I did look through three pages worth of comments. I could find nothing at all like he claims.
Why can't he quote it? Why can't I find it?

Whether or not you can be bothered to look for something has no bearing on whether or not Tom is a liar, or the range of options available to you.

Well, what would you have me do?
I've already looked quite deep into the comments.
If he can't be bothered to link it, I can't be bothered to pay attention to him.

Point is: He can't provide it for me.
As such I can only assume it doesn't exist.

Point is: He can't provide it for me.
As such I can only assume it doesn't exist.

This is the obvious falsehood I was talking about earlier.

Quote from: Graff on April 15, 2012, 08:37:35 PM

Point is: He can't provide it for me.
As such I can only assume it doesn't exist.

This is the obvious falsehood I was talking about earlier.

Show me proof that the comment he claims exist exists.

It has nothing to do with the comment's existence. It's to do with your clearly absurd use of the word "only".

It has nothing to do with the comment's existence. It's to do with your clearly absurd use of the word "only".

I'm not sure what you mean.
Would you rather I say I assume that it doesn't exist?
How about this: I naturally.
Honestly, Wilmore. You are grasping at straws here. What does it prove? What does it matter?

I'm not "grasping at straws", just trying to improve the tone of debate. Just because someone hasn't provided you with a link, does not mean you have no other option but to call them a liar.

I'm not "grasping at straws", just trying to improve the tone of debate. Just because someone hasn't provided you with a link, does not mean you have no other option but to call them a liar.

He refuses to provide it.
He can prove he isn't at any time.
He chooses not to.

He used this comment as proof, and yet was not able to supply it.
As such; I refuse to accept it as evidence.